If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I would like you to point out a single individual on this board that was happy with everything Bush and any of the given Congresses he had did. Anyone!!!! You and a couple of others here can't seem to grasp that concept. I don't want to forget any of it....the parts that were done wrong especially. Your current 'sweetheart' ran on a platform of 'no backroom deals', 'no buying votes', 'open discussion', 'no "questionable" procedures', 'no "funny" math' etc., etc.........."CHANGE"....remember that???? No business as usual in DC...... You're right, HYPOCRISY is the word of the day. Your defense of the Dems ... in any form leaves it stamped on your forehead.

And likewise, I'd like to see you point out where Obama is my "sweetheart". I can't get in the minds of others, rather just go by what I see posted here. All I've seen lately is many attacks on Obama for the EXACT same things Bush and his cronies did for the last 8 years.

A few people are so very bothered by the fact that there are independant voters out there. In fact, I've been told more times than I can count: who I voted for (incorrectly), what my beliefs are, etc... It must be the old Bushism...you either with me or against me, mentality. Its black and white thinking. Something most grow out of somewhere in their teen years, and begin to see much of the world is in the gray zone. Life doesn't have many simple answers. For the crime of looking at issues from different angles, and going so far as trying to see someone else's points, you get labeled a flaming liberal and attacked. Have at it.

I respect all others points of view, except when they become violent or trample the rights of others. (flying planes into buildings, clubbing gays to death because they're gay, shooting doctors in the head in church)

Dback -- Read a little closer. I am ticked at the Dems for playing kumbiya with the Republicans. They should have gotten everyone on their side lined up, then introduced the bill. Let the Republicans whine and groan. The Democrats owned the hammer in both houses and they could have and should have got her done.

If the Republicans were serious about participation in forming a bill they would have sat down with ex-Senator Dave Durenberger, who is arguably the Republicans' best man on health care.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), under the Senate version of Health Care Reform being negotiated, private health insurance premiums in the individual market would rise by as much as $2,100.

Policies would have to cover a specified set of services and to have an "actuarial value" of at least 60 percent (meaning that the plan would, on average, pay that share of the costs of providing covered services to a representative set of enrollees). In addition, insurers would have to accept all applicants during an annual open-enrollment period, and insurers could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Moreover, premiums could not vary to reflect differences in enrollees’ health or use of services and could vary on the basis of an enrollee’s age only to a limited degree

Is this possibly a key point? Of the 30 million uninsured, how many are in the young/healthy group v. how many in the pre-existing condition group?

If everyone pays the same premium (can't be different based on age or health), then it surely appears that those young/healthy people will pay a whole lot more than they would today. Actuarily, you cannot increase benefits & retain fiscal soundness without increasing the gross income to the funding.

Among other changes, health insurance plans: could not impose lifetime limits on the total amount of services covered; could rescind coverage only for certain reasons; would have to cover certain preventive services with no cost sharing; and would have to allow unmarried dependents to be covered under their parents’ policies up to age 26. Those changes would also apply to new coverage provided by large employers, including firms that "self-insure"—meaning that the firm, rather than an insurer, bears the financial risk of providing coverage.

I don't see why all co-pays are verbotten. Even $5 or $10 on a co-pay is manageable for almost every insured; and even small co-pays can go a long way to adding to fiscal soundness when multiplied by 30 million.

However, current policies that had been purchased in any of those markets or that were offered by self-insured firms would be exempt from all of those changes if they were maintained continuously—that is, policies held since the date of enactment of the legislation would be "grandfathered."

I can understand what about self-insured programs, but might not some employees withdraw from those plans if possible to get enhanced coverage in some other way? Wouldn't those employees be ticked off if their present plan fell short of the mandated plan. In that way, it could cost business more than they are paying now, depending on what plan the company presently offers. ... I think, but would not swear to the fact that I am interpreting this as the employees or the govt would interpret it.

and penalize certain employers if their workers received subsidies through the exchanges

So, if an employee gets a subsidy because its income is too low to pay for its premiums (grandfathered in?), the employer will be penalized. That seems to sort of negate the concept of being grand-fathered into the new plan.

Does that mean that if an employer is providing a very good plan, but the cost of the plan is high, the employer will then have to absorb more of the cost so that his employees don't need to be govt-subsidized.

If this wouldn't push the whole concept of health insurance to total govt control, given a little time, I'd be very surprised.

substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law);

But will Congress have the courage to reduce the Medicare reimbursement rates to do this? Don't necessarily believe that is the right thing to do, but seems to be a "requirement" of the available CBO evaluation of the Senate bill.

Each of those components of the legislation has the potential to affect the premiums that are charged for insurance, directly or indirectly; some would increase premiums, and others would decrease them.

The question would be whatt is the NET result of increases v. decreases?

This Adobe file is 29 pages. I only have quoted from the first 3 since I have to work today ... There is a table on page 29 that shows the %-ages of income that will be expended by various income ranges (for a single person & family of 4).

It would be interesting to see what %-age of income members of this forum now pay for health insurance v. the tables shown; and whether you would come out ahead or behind.

Addressing the question of why a lot of people may be Johnnie-come-lately to observing how Congress has exploited "hanky-panky" in the past: I think this very high-profile legislation has made the ugliness of the legislative process more visible. Awareness has been raised. Personal involvement has been increased. The fact that some of us were too uninvolved earlier is not, in and of itself, an indictment of integrity. Anyone who would choose to move from a state of ignorance to a state of more knowledge is good for a republic, not a bad thing.

And I do agree that I have seen no one on this forum who has defended every item of Bush's administration. It IS possible to discuss issues based on the process used (regardless of by whom), and whether the process as related to the issues was beneficial or not to the outcome. If the process was used to advance negative-impact, then we should take heed to assess the issue.

I don't think anybody, here or in Congress, believes that the US healthcare system is perfect. The disagreement lies in how to make it better. It will never be perfect. We can clearly see that universal health care in those countries that have it is not perfect either.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Bumma should be charged with treason!!!!! End of story!!!!!! He cares nothing for the constitution. He wants to ram his socialist crap down our throats no matter what.
Everyone knows he is truly a commie at heart!

OH now he is using his power to block protesters from getting near the capital.
Why should non income tax payers be allowed to dictate the sttealing of other peoples money?
\Pay income taxes then you can vote.
I stongly suport I revolt !!!!